-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Logical fallacies
- Thread starter Zukuu
- Start date
I've never quite understood why burden of proof is a logical fallacy. All it does is defend the status quo.
Being able to identify and counter logical fallacies are useful critical thinking and communication skills. The counter being the overlooked more important part as it is much more difficult to refine.
What you see instead on the internet, particularly the rationale types, is just the identify part. And often even identifying isn't done all that well and is slung more like I Am Smarter Than You insult. Telling someone they are making a strawman argument usually just results in a discussion dissolving into no substance. Be an effective communicator rather than someone who sounds like they have the List of Fallacies wikipedia article on speed dial.
What you see instead on the internet, particularly the rationale types, is just the identify part. And often even identifying isn't done all that well and is slung more like I Am Smarter Than You insult. Telling someone they are making a strawman argument usually just results in a discussion dissolving into no substance. Be an effective communicator rather than someone who sounds like they have the List of Fallacies wikipedia article on speed dial.
If the intial argument doesn't have any proof then it's not a valid argument, it's an opinion.
Because it's an intellectual out. You can fire off the most outlandish claims, and then sit back and smugly remark, "Nope. Show me the proof that I'm wrong." It's beyond lazy and disingenuous.
Uh, how about no. YOU show me that your outlandish claims have any substance to them. Why are you putting the burden of disproving a negative on me?
I think a lot of people just use these as slogans without engaging in substance.
If you point to expert opinion some logic bro will scream "argument to authority!"
If you point out conflict of interest its "dude, ad hominim!"
If you draw attention to a mischaracterisation its "no true scotsman!"
So very tiresome, superficial, and lazy.
If you point to expert opinion some logic bro will scream "argument to authority!"
If you point out conflict of interest its "dude, ad hominim!"
If you draw attention to a mischaracterisation its "no true scotsman!"
So very tiresome, superficial, and lazy.
OP
OP
Even the thing you describe is on the chart "the fallacy fallacy"
Now I'm wondering if there is the same guide with a "how to response"-chart.
Burdeb of proof is incredibly prevalent amongst the alt right. It's the entire crux behind their "debate me" tactic. Because they spend a lot of time saying false things. See the deb conversation from the ion fury devs about people who're trans.
If you find a shortcut here, bottle it and become a billionaire.
In my experience it is a slow, prodding thing that only comes with an unbelievable amount of discussion and practice.
Fortunately we don't have much to do here on an internet forum except talk so plenty of opportunity.
This sums up discussing anything on the internet with strangers.
This. As a framework they're great but the recent spike in awareness of them has led to online discussion falling off a cliff, people read a wikipedia article once and instead of engaging with text they just shout STRAWMAN.
I fucking love Ad hominems. There was a thread on gaming where someone made a 5 hour video talking about Persona 5 (presumably negatively) and some of thread is summed up as
Slippery slope is always a classic.
Talks crap about people making a logical fallacy, immediately uses a strawman.
Talks crap about people making a logical fallacy, immediately uses a strawman.
Yeah. People often like to flaunt terminology that make them sound sophisticated. I barely made it through the ludonarrative dissonance craze, and the widespread overuse of the term problematic is just now beginning to die down.
Yes and in some variants this too is known as the "fallacy fallacy" or "argument from fallacy"!
Last edited:
Crossing Eden put it better than I could have
I think CE was saying that alt righters commit the burden of proof fallacy
Mostly on contentious topics:
Black or White, Begging the Question, Anecdotal, Bandwagon, Composition/Division, Appeal to Authority, Strawman, Genetic, False Cause and Loaded Question when reading many posts by some ardent atheists and anti-theists regarding religion or spirituality.
Black or White, Ad hominem, the Fallacy Fallacy, and Slippery Slope I've encountered pretty commonly in the political threads.
Special Pleading, Ambiguity, Slippery Slope, Loaded Question, Bandwagon, Strawman, Ad Hominem("you're so woke!") and Tu Quogue in conversations about Indigenous self-determination, representation and related topics.
I try to be careful but I've caught myself using ambiguity and Texas sharpshooter often. Also when making assumptions false cause is often found in my conclusions on reflection.
Black or White, Begging the Question, Anecdotal, Bandwagon, Composition/Division, Appeal to Authority, Strawman, Genetic, False Cause and Loaded Question when reading many posts by some ardent atheists and anti-theists regarding religion or spirituality.
Black or White, Ad hominem, the Fallacy Fallacy, and Slippery Slope I've encountered pretty commonly in the political threads.
Special Pleading, Ambiguity, Slippery Slope, Loaded Question, Bandwagon, Strawman, Ad Hominem("you're so woke!") and Tu Quogue in conversations about Indigenous self-determination, representation and related topics.
I try to be careful but I've caught myself using ambiguity and Texas sharpshooter often. Also when making assumptions false cause is often found in my conclusions on reflection.
Having personally encountered this with folks who lean right, it always seems off-putting. I can't offer a hug, look in the eye, or use other interpersonal skills I utilize face to face when I'm typing into the void.
If I'm slipping into fallacious territory, I would like to be called on it, but I know from encountering this, I lack tact in the "how to encounter" over a message board in particular.
But the entire crux of "debate me" is that it's your job to endlessly cite sources against their false claims.
For each of these, I could probably give you a far-right personality who excels in at least one of these.
Ben Shapiro, for example, asks so many Loaded Questions that his mouth should be registered as a personal firearm. Then when he's backed into a corner, he pulls out a Tu Quoque to avoid answering the question. Then of course, the Slippery Slope fallacy of "where do we draw the line with genders?" as if there wouldn't be a line drawn at all.
I see a lot of Appeal to Emotion from lefties on Twitter, and they're almost always correct like when they criticize Charlie Kirk for saying something stupid or whatever. But then there are other times when they take any genuine criticism of something "left" or "liberal" way too personally and don't make any concrete points.
Which is fine I guess, not everything has to be a debate, but it's generally hard to take someone seriously when they just jump to emotional responses. There are exceptions to that rule, too.
Before I joined NeoGAF (and later, Era), I used to be one of those "enlightened centrist" assholes (Middle Ground Fallacy) who thought that the truth was somewhere in the middle. I would honestly still think that, if the Overton Window had not shifted so far to the right that whatever the hell "center-right" and "center-left" are/used to be are completely obscured by racist assholes and the retaliation to racist assholes
Ben Shapiro, for example, asks so many Loaded Questions that his mouth should be registered as a personal firearm. Then when he's backed into a corner, he pulls out a Tu Quoque to avoid answering the question. Then of course, the Slippery Slope fallacy of "where do we draw the line with genders?" as if there wouldn't be a line drawn at all.
I see a lot of Appeal to Emotion from lefties on Twitter, and they're almost always correct like when they criticize Charlie Kirk for saying something stupid or whatever. But then there are other times when they take any genuine criticism of something "left" or "liberal" way too personally and don't make any concrete points.
Which is fine I guess, not everything has to be a debate, but it's generally hard to take someone seriously when they just jump to emotional responses. There are exceptions to that rule, too.
Before I joined NeoGAF (and later, Era), I used to be one of those "enlightened centrist" assholes (Middle Ground Fallacy) who thought that the truth was somewhere in the middle. I would honestly still think that, if the Overton Window had not shifted so far to the right that whatever the hell "center-right" and "center-left" are/used to be are completely obscured by racist assholes and the retaliation to racist assholes
But false claims obviously haven't met their burden of proof.
Shapiro straight up uses sophistry. He confuses rhetoric for valid argumentation.
That's generally the trick with these IDW types. They don't care about making valid arguments they just wanna push their propaganda by any means necessary. Somehow, people like Shapiro tricks folks into thinking they're doing more than that.
In a tangential note: it's important to be logically sound and knowledgeable of the art of debate when engaging in arguments in which logic is priority. Most netizens just like to sling MUD!! Fruitless really..
But debate has to be a fair platform. That's the core of logical rhetoric: balance.
Using the likes of fallacious identification, one component of debate, as a one sided way of saying, 'All things taken personally are automatically the same as a baby crying in the wind,' is not fair. It's not really compassionate.
When talking with someone, sometimes it's okay to view them as a person, not as an opponent.
Rational decisions are key in making important decisions and driving healthy discourse.
But if someone's lost a loved one, or venting their frustrations, or despairing at their peoples being relentlessly preyed upon, sometimes it's okay to just let them grieve. Because in that moment, emotion isn't illogical; it's natural.
Right, Spock?
He'd agree..!!
Last edited:
thats precisely why it should be the job of the person making the claim to provide justification for it, not the other way around
i dont even want to know the perception of reality someone would have if they didn't care about the information in the OP
